Mr Skidmore Letter on Part 61 - Don’t Mention the Cost!
Thread Starter
CASR Part 61 cost of compliance understated?
Having just re-read the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) it seems either industry or CASA has got it all wrong. According to the RIS the additional cost of gaining an ATPL was to be under $10K and Type Endorsements versus Type Ratings - no additional cost - merely an administrative change.! I wonder if the RIS was considered by the authors of the various MOS and the Flight Examiner's Handbook - if not why not? What's the point of creating a RIS, then ignoring it?
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L00218/6b3523f0-4a46-4cd9-a6b9-358947eec395
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L00218/6b3523f0-4a46-4cd9-a6b9-358947eec395
Most likely the RIS is a fiction. CASA has a track record of this. Note no individual names are linked to a RIS.
And $10k is a substantial amount. Was there any extra safety claimed from this change?
And $10k is a substantial amount. Was there any extra safety claimed from this change?
Thread Starter
CASR Part 61 cost of compliance understated?
I agree, $10K for no stated or demonstrated safety benefit is totally unacceptable to any industry, let alone one on its knees. I went in search of the Part 61 etc RIS after reading your post regarding ADS-B. Surely there must be some accountability for these documents of fiction? Are the authors of the various regulations required to bear in mind the content of the RIS?
Folks,
The bigger problem with Part 61/141/142 is complying at all, at any cost, and the ongoing costs of keeping licenses current under the "new system" is horrifying.
CASA must be forced to comply with its own manuals and mandatory Government policy, including genuine cost/benefit analysis at the beginning -- and this need amendment to S.9A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to make it really stick. By the time you get to a RIS it is too late.
Tootle pip!!
The bigger problem with Part 61/141/142 is complying at all, at any cost, and the ongoing costs of keeping licenses current under the "new system" is horrifying.
CASA must be forced to comply with its own manuals and mandatory Government policy, including genuine cost/benefit analysis at the beginning -- and this need amendment to S.9A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to make it really stick. By the time you get to a RIS it is too late.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
ever noticed that just when "rational" debate starts to develop, just as in your skidmore thread "certain" people turn up and the thread is locked.
Maybe you should have a cup of tea with our Aunty Pru, she rather likes rational debate.
ever noticed that just when "rational" debate starts to develop, just as in your skidmore thread "certain" people turn up and the thread is locked.
Maybe you should have a cup of tea with our Aunty Pru, she rather likes rational debate.
Mr Skidmore Letter on Part 61 - Don’t Mention the Cost!
I and many others have received a letter entitled, “Update on New Flight Crew Licensing Regulations” from the Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore AM, in relation to Part 61.
Twice Mr Skidmore asks for feedback in relation to “what is working well and what is not”, however at no stage does Mr Skidmore mention that they are looking for comments on whether costs have increased because of Part 61. It’s almost as if the code within CASA says, “whatever you do, don’t mention cost”.
In his letter Mr Skidmore says, “I want open and honest feedback on what is working and what is not” - once again, no mention of cost. Presumably Mr Skidmore and the “Iron Circle” don’t want any comments on cost even though cost is the main problem with Part 61. That is, a substantial increase in costs when there was no safety issue to be addressed.
In Australia we share the wealth a lot better than most countries which means our average wage and our minimum wage are far higher, especially compared with places like the USA, Canada, the UK and New Zealand. For us to be able to compete in the international marketplace it means we have to be very much smarter and do things very much more efficiently.
Part 61 is, in fact, the opposite. It has substantially increased costs to many people in the industry and this means they will be less competitive in their businesses.
More to the point, money will be shifted from real safety issues to the Part 61 compliance costs when safety was not an issue.
Twice Mr Skidmore asks for feedback in relation to “what is working well and what is not”, however at no stage does Mr Skidmore mention that they are looking for comments on whether costs have increased because of Part 61. It’s almost as if the code within CASA says, “whatever you do, don’t mention cost”.
In his letter Mr Skidmore says, “I want open and honest feedback on what is working and what is not” - once again, no mention of cost. Presumably Mr Skidmore and the “Iron Circle” don’t want any comments on cost even though cost is the main problem with Part 61. That is, a substantial increase in costs when there was no safety issue to be addressed.
In Australia we share the wealth a lot better than most countries which means our average wage and our minimum wage are far higher, especially compared with places like the USA, Canada, the UK and New Zealand. For us to be able to compete in the international marketplace it means we have to be very much smarter and do things very much more efficiently.
Part 61 is, in fact, the opposite. It has substantially increased costs to many people in the industry and this means they will be less competitive in their businesses.
More to the point, money will be shifted from real safety issues to the Part 61 compliance costs when safety was not an issue.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see any safety benefit whatsoever! So what is the justification?
Why is it such a large document, compared with other countries such as NZ?
Written by the lawyers no doubt?
What was the problem it is trying to fix???
Why is it such a large document, compared with other countries such as NZ?
Written by the lawyers no doubt?
What was the problem it is trying to fix???
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with most things political. 10 minutes to make the change and a life time to understand what the change will do. The engineering licence system is now in complete disarray and know one knows where it's headed. A complete disgrace.
Let's not miss the opportunity. Clearly CASA can now appreciate that Part 61 is lacking in many sections. This is industrys' chance for 'consultation' from a better bargaining position.
I've wasted no time in submitting a proposal to scrap the 'rating' out of Low Level Rating, and suggested a suite of associated changes which would improve safety.
happy days,
I've wasted no time in submitting a proposal to scrap the 'rating' out of Low Level Rating, and suggested a suite of associated changes which would improve safety.
happy days,
Not just costs, but to comply with a set of rules, first one needs to comprehend those rules.
I recall attending a CASA briefing for testing officers in which we were told that instrument proficiency tests on aircraft over 5700 kg were type specific, ie an IPC issued for one type did not entitle the pilot to fly IFR on another type. Now I am told that is not so.
All that is required is that a Flight Review is completed every two years on whichever type I wish to fly, plus to fly IFR, an annual IPC on one of the types. So...I have a need to fly three types in a non airline environment. That is one IPC a year on any of them, and a review on each of them every two years. Or is it? My brain hurts trying to work out whether I would be setting myself up for prosecution.
When CASA officers don't know themselves, what hope have the rest of us?
Then the issue of examiner liability, now that we are no longer Delegates. Recently I had a very unpleasant encounter with a lesser official in CASA because he interpreted a rule differently to the way I did. He was half right, but a good lawyer would have equally said that I was too. I may have only avoided prosecution because at the time I was actually representing CASA, which is what a Delegate does. Under the new system, an Examiner enjoys no such protection.
This recent nastiness gives me good enough reason alone to drop out of the whole examiner scene (to cheering from some, no doubt). But I know others in the same mind, and they will be a loss to the industry. Perhaps industry should jack up and leave it to CASA to provide all testing. On second thoughts, maybe that's what they really want. To completely cripple aviation so that they can all collect their redundancy packages.
I recall attending a CASA briefing for testing officers in which we were told that instrument proficiency tests on aircraft over 5700 kg were type specific, ie an IPC issued for one type did not entitle the pilot to fly IFR on another type. Now I am told that is not so.
All that is required is that a Flight Review is completed every two years on whichever type I wish to fly, plus to fly IFR, an annual IPC on one of the types. So...I have a need to fly three types in a non airline environment. That is one IPC a year on any of them, and a review on each of them every two years. Or is it? My brain hurts trying to work out whether I would be setting myself up for prosecution.
When CASA officers don't know themselves, what hope have the rest of us?
Then the issue of examiner liability, now that we are no longer Delegates. Recently I had a very unpleasant encounter with a lesser official in CASA because he interpreted a rule differently to the way I did. He was half right, but a good lawyer would have equally said that I was too. I may have only avoided prosecution because at the time I was actually representing CASA, which is what a Delegate does. Under the new system, an Examiner enjoys no such protection.
This recent nastiness gives me good enough reason alone to drop out of the whole examiner scene (to cheering from some, no doubt). But I know others in the same mind, and they will be a loss to the industry. Perhaps industry should jack up and leave it to CASA to provide all testing. On second thoughts, maybe that's what they really want. To completely cripple aviation so that they can all collect their redundancy packages.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 7th May 2015 at 09:47.
In the USA the instrument rating is forever and requires no renewal. A pilot just has to comply with the recency requirements .
Yes. A BFR is required every two years but no instrument flight is required during the review.
Should we all move our aircraft to the U.S. register?
Yes. A BFR is required every two years but no instrument flight is required during the review.
Should we all move our aircraft to the U.S. register?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Trans Tasman Mutual Agreement should make NZ a closer link to US type rules and an FAA pilot certificate.
My next jet will be registered in NZ. I may not have one yet but I'm trying.
My next jet will be registered in NZ. I may not have one yet but I'm trying.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Runaway Gun send your email regarding cost impacts to:
[email protected]
Quote from Mr Skidmore's letter (bottom para on page 1):
"...I need your feedback. While consultation takes place as rules are being developed, inevitably there are issues or unintended consequences that need to be addressed." (my bolding).
I would say that significant cost impacts could definitely be classified as an 'unintended consequence' that 'needs to be addressed.'
Of course how interested they might be in addressing that unintended consequence remains to be seen but if enough people submit feedback on that point you never know... 'The squeaky door gets the oil' - one can only hope...!
[email protected]
Quote from Mr Skidmore's letter (bottom para on page 1):
"...I need your feedback. While consultation takes place as rules are being developed, inevitably there are issues or unintended consequences that need to be addressed." (my bolding).
I would say that significant cost impacts could definitely be classified as an 'unintended consequence' that 'needs to be addressed.'
Of course how interested they might be in addressing that unintended consequence remains to be seen but if enough people submit feedback on that point you never know... 'The squeaky door gets the oil' - one can only hope...!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perpetually Commuting
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the USA the instrument rating is forever and requires no renewal. A pilot just has to comply with the recency requirements .
Yes. A BFR is required every two years but no instrument flight is required during the review.
Should we all move our aircraft to the U.S. register?
Yes. A BFR is required every two years but no instrument flight is required during the review.
Should we all move our aircraft to the U.S. register?
Seriously, why didn't they just do a copy-and-paste of U.S FAR Part 61?
Indonesia literally copied and pasted it and it works fine.
Forkie, I Dunno if you only fly privately, but guess that you do. A basic IPC is materially the same as the old CIR so quite rightly should not cost more....yet.
But consider the flight school that delivers the IPC. If they have instructors with multiple approvals, they have many more checks to complete. Not good enough that someone from CASA would come in and check various skills on a cyclical basis - ALL must be checked at whatever the stipulated frequency is. So stand by for your costs to increase when these imposts get passed on.
And pity the poor charter operator who wants a pilot to fly, for example, a King Air 200, a King Air 350 and a Baron. It would be nice to think that the 350 would cover the others, or that the 200 is close enough to a 350 that it doesn't matter and if you can fly a King Air you can probably cope with a Baron - but according to Part 61, it ain't necessarily so.
Yet the same set of rules means a pilot can do a tailwheel endorsement in a Piper Cub, followed the next day with an initial multi in a Duchess and then leap straight in to a Beech 18. Do not try this at home.
But consider the flight school that delivers the IPC. If they have instructors with multiple approvals, they have many more checks to complete. Not good enough that someone from CASA would come in and check various skills on a cyclical basis - ALL must be checked at whatever the stipulated frequency is. So stand by for your costs to increase when these imposts get passed on.
And pity the poor charter operator who wants a pilot to fly, for example, a King Air 200, a King Air 350 and a Baron. It would be nice to think that the 350 would cover the others, or that the 200 is close enough to a 350 that it doesn't matter and if you can fly a King Air you can probably cope with a Baron - but according to Part 61, it ain't necessarily so.
Yet the same set of rules means a pilot can do a tailwheel endorsement in a Piper Cub, followed the next day with an initial multi in a Duchess and then leap straight in to a Beech 18. Do not try this at home.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 6th May 2015 at 10:00. Reason: Typo
I refer to the Director of Aviation Safety’s letter dated 30 April 2015, inviting feedback on the new flight crew licensing suite of regulations.
As a preliminary point I note that the many stated aims of the new regulations have, over the years, included:
- “safety through simplicity”
- “harmonisation”
- “a less prescriptive, outcomes-based safety regime”, and
- “no exemptions” (because they would no longer be necessary in a simple, harmonised, outcomes-based safety regime).
The new regulations achieve none of those aims. In fact, they achieve the opposite.
The Dreamliner was promised but the Spruce Goose has been delivered. The people who paid and waited for the Dreamliner are now not only stuck with the Spruce Goose, but are expected to take seriously the suggestion that this monstrosity can be “continuously improved” into an even better Dreamliner, this side of hell freezing over.
I invite CASA to identify one provision of the new flight crew licensing regulations that has demonstrably caused an improvement in safety compared with the pre-existing regulations, at no cost or at a cost commensurate with the improvement.
I note that a person required to keep a personal logbook commits a criminal offence if the person does not retain the logbook, unaltered, for seven years after the last entry was made in the logbook: CASR 61.355. I invite CASA to describe one realistic scenario in which the throwing of a pilot’s logbook into the bin, 6 or so years after the pilot’s last flight as crew, would cause any material safety risk. Just one realistic scenario. (Hell, even an unrealistic scenario might shed some light on what’s going on in the head of whoever decided that making this a crime would contribute to safety.)
I note the exquisite genius of the confusion created by the convoluted complexity of the meaning of “flight time” in Part 61 of CASR compared with the definition of “flight time” in the 1988 Regulations. In the 1988 regulations, the duration of a flight starts when an aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off. That definition in itself causes some chronically-unresolved issues. E.g. the PIC can’t give binding directions to PAX during ‘push-back’, because 309A is linked to the definition of ‘flight time’ in the 1988 regulations.
But now we also have Part 61, in which the duration of a flight starts from the moment an aircraft begins moving, whether or not under its own power, in preparation for flight. Does that mean I log PIC time from the moment I tow my aircraft out of the hangar in preparation for flight? If so, I’ve just increased my aeronautical experience by about 25%, by all the hangar door closing, head scratching, nervous weeing and paperwork I do before turning the key. Am I therefore 25% safer?
Of course, it’s not possible to understand what all of the new regulations mean, without knowing about and understanding the effect of the myriad of exemptions that may variously negate, alter or extend the effect of the regulations. Given that I realised, about 10 years ago, that almost nothing in the ever-growing piles of regulations and manuals and exemptions made much practical difference to the safe conduct of flying activities, I doubt whether I’ll ever be inclined to gain that understanding, or that my safety will be compromised by not doing so.
Importantly, I realise that many in CASA are among us poor passengers stuck on the Spruce Goose. Although lots of people blame CASA for the design of the Spruce Goose, I realise that CASA has neither the resources nor the competence to design a safety regulatory regime and, to the limited extent that CASA has come up with good design ideas, changes have often been dictated by people outside CASA - the government equivalent of the marketing gurus and the bean counters and the legal department, all of whom have irreconcilable demands and won’t be on the test flight.
But problems are difficult to solve unless there’s an understanding and genuine acknowledgement of the real extent of the problem.
The problem here is that the new regulations are a monstrosity, and no amount of continuous improvement is going to change that.
CASA needs to genuinely acknowledge and confront that problem, or it will continue to be part of and blamed for it.
As a preliminary point I note that the many stated aims of the new regulations have, over the years, included:
- “safety through simplicity”
- “harmonisation”
- “a less prescriptive, outcomes-based safety regime”, and
- “no exemptions” (because they would no longer be necessary in a simple, harmonised, outcomes-based safety regime).
The new regulations achieve none of those aims. In fact, they achieve the opposite.
The Dreamliner was promised but the Spruce Goose has been delivered. The people who paid and waited for the Dreamliner are now not only stuck with the Spruce Goose, but are expected to take seriously the suggestion that this monstrosity can be “continuously improved” into an even better Dreamliner, this side of hell freezing over.
I invite CASA to identify one provision of the new flight crew licensing regulations that has demonstrably caused an improvement in safety compared with the pre-existing regulations, at no cost or at a cost commensurate with the improvement.
I note that a person required to keep a personal logbook commits a criminal offence if the person does not retain the logbook, unaltered, for seven years after the last entry was made in the logbook: CASR 61.355. I invite CASA to describe one realistic scenario in which the throwing of a pilot’s logbook into the bin, 6 or so years after the pilot’s last flight as crew, would cause any material safety risk. Just one realistic scenario. (Hell, even an unrealistic scenario might shed some light on what’s going on in the head of whoever decided that making this a crime would contribute to safety.)
I note the exquisite genius of the confusion created by the convoluted complexity of the meaning of “flight time” in Part 61 of CASR compared with the definition of “flight time” in the 1988 Regulations. In the 1988 regulations, the duration of a flight starts when an aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off. That definition in itself causes some chronically-unresolved issues. E.g. the PIC can’t give binding directions to PAX during ‘push-back’, because 309A is linked to the definition of ‘flight time’ in the 1988 regulations.
But now we also have Part 61, in which the duration of a flight starts from the moment an aircraft begins moving, whether or not under its own power, in preparation for flight. Does that mean I log PIC time from the moment I tow my aircraft out of the hangar in preparation for flight? If so, I’ve just increased my aeronautical experience by about 25%, by all the hangar door closing, head scratching, nervous weeing and paperwork I do before turning the key. Am I therefore 25% safer?
Of course, it’s not possible to understand what all of the new regulations mean, without knowing about and understanding the effect of the myriad of exemptions that may variously negate, alter or extend the effect of the regulations. Given that I realised, about 10 years ago, that almost nothing in the ever-growing piles of regulations and manuals and exemptions made much practical difference to the safe conduct of flying activities, I doubt whether I’ll ever be inclined to gain that understanding, or that my safety will be compromised by not doing so.
Importantly, I realise that many in CASA are among us poor passengers stuck on the Spruce Goose. Although lots of people blame CASA for the design of the Spruce Goose, I realise that CASA has neither the resources nor the competence to design a safety regulatory regime and, to the limited extent that CASA has come up with good design ideas, changes have often been dictated by people outside CASA - the government equivalent of the marketing gurus and the bean counters and the legal department, all of whom have irreconcilable demands and won’t be on the test flight.
But problems are difficult to solve unless there’s an understanding and genuine acknowledgement of the real extent of the problem.
The problem here is that the new regulations are a monstrosity, and no amount of continuous improvement is going to change that.
CASA needs to genuinely acknowledge and confront that problem, or it will continue to be part of and blamed for it.
It’s almost as if the code within CASA says, “whatever you do, don’t mention cost”.
Honestly, Dick, you are a bigger master of spin than Warney, or at least you use it a hell of a lot!
Yes Mach E. I do only fly privately these days but I was only giving my experience of Part 61. From my perspective, I can't see any real issues with it, but I gotta ask why the change? What was the problem with the "old" way?
I have always flown my renewals in the aeroplane and a typical flight was and RNAV appr, and ILS and an NDB appr (if I wanted the latter - which I never use anyway).
Under Part 61 I need to fly a 3D appr, a 2D appr and ensure I have covered a CDI indicator and an azimuth indicator in those if I want to use them.
Am I a better pilot because of Part 61 - No!
Am I a safer pilot because of Part 61 - No!
Not that I can see anyway - but hey, I know I only operate near the bottom of the piloting dung heap!
Dr
PS:....and if someone knows the implication of Part 61 on PIFR privilages - please enlighten me cause I haven't figured that out yet!
I have always flown my renewals in the aeroplane and a typical flight was and RNAV appr, and ILS and an NDB appr (if I wanted the latter - which I never use anyway).
Under Part 61 I need to fly a 3D appr, a 2D appr and ensure I have covered a CDI indicator and an azimuth indicator in those if I want to use them.
Am I a better pilot because of Part 61 - No!
Am I a safer pilot because of Part 61 - No!
Not that I can see anyway - but hey, I know I only operate near the bottom of the piloting dung heap!
Dr
PS:....and if someone knows the implication of Part 61 on PIFR privilages - please enlighten me cause I haven't figured that out yet!